Truth Magazine

By T. Doy Moyer

1 Corinthians 11 has been surrounded by controversy due to the teaching about the covering. It is not the purpose or scope of this article to try to expound a pro or con position on the covering today. Women do need to carefully study the passage for themselves and make thought-out decisions as to what they will practice. It is certainly not a passage that can be overlooked without serious consideration. This article will focus more on the role of women as taught in verse 3. The wearing of the covering for the women when praying or prophesying was to demonstrate their submissive position. It is the submissive role itself that we want to briefly consider.

“But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.”

In the midst of the problems that the Corinthians were having, it appears that they also had a problem with order among men and women. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 indicates problems even within the assembly with women inappropriately addressing the assembly or interrupting with questions. This violated their given role to “quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness” (1 Tim. 2:11). Even women with prophetic abilities were not to violate their submissive position to take the lead over men. The apostle is very explicit in the order given. We no more have a right to change this order around than we do to change around the order of what is required for salvation.

Stepping Out of the Role

Terrible consequences come when we step out of our given roles. A woman who did not wear a covering within this context disgraced her head (v. 5). She was “one and the same with her whose head is shaved,” something they would have understood to be a great disgrace to women. Women who think that they are demonstrating their “independence” and acting in their own self-interests when they reject God-given submissive roles are, in reality, disgracing themselves. It is no great dignity for a women to try to take the headship away from the man. She does not “fulfill her potential” when she usurps authority over men. She was not created to lead man. Thus, when she attempts to do so, she greatly harms her divine station in life. Contrary to popular opinion, the role of the woman as shown in Scripture is not a shameful position to be in. In fact, it is a position of honor and esteem. For example, to hear people degrade women who stay home to raise their children is distasteful to a mind thinking on godly values. Rather, we need to realize what a great honor it is for a woman to be in the position in which God has put her (cf. Tit. 2:4-5).

Verse 9 teaches that woman was created “for the man,” as Genesis teaches. She was made to be a complement to the man, not a hindrance. Feminism, which in essence seeks to break all ties with “man,” has hurt, perhaps more than any movement, the honor and glory that rightly belongs to a woman who gracefully submits to the will of God (cf. 31:10-31). She was created to be a companion and helper, not a threat and challenge to the man.

One of the reasons given in I Corinthians 11 for women to wear the covering was “because of the angels” (v. 10). Since the covering was a sign of “authority” (i.e., it symbolizes the authority to which she submits), her not wearing one when praying or prophesying, indicated that she was stepping out of her required role. She needed to think of angels. This is not because they were looking down on her to see what she was doing. It seems more likely that this is referring to the “angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode” (Jude 6). As a result, they were “kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day” (cf. also 2 Pet. 2:4). In other words, he was telling the women to think about what happened to the angels who stepped out of their assigned positions before you think of removing the sign of authority which shows your submission. Keeping our proper places is essential according to the word of God.

Men and women are dependent upon each other (v. 11). Therefore, it is vital for us to recognize our proper places and stay there. The battle existing between men and women is only further aggravated when we try to reverse or ignore the roles. Even “nature” teaches a difference between men and women (vv. 14-15). It is a tremendous curse on our society that these differences are not respected as they should be. When men look and act like women, and women look and act like men, we are shamed and reproached.

Meaning of Head

The word head (keyhole) refers to “that which is upper-most in relation to something” (Zodhiates 860). When used of persons, it is “the head, chief, one to whom others are subordinate” (Ibid.). “In the case of living beings, to denote superior rank” (Bauer 430). “A figurative extension . . . one who is of supreme or pre-eminent status, in view of authority to order or command  `one who is the head of, one who is superior to, one who is supreme over” (Louw & Nida 739). When it says that “man is the head of woman,” it is saying that, in terms of authority, man has the higher position. This clearly puts man in the leadership position. For a woman to resent this and attempt to step out of her role is to disrespect God. This is not the result of some male-dominated society and chauvinistic apostle. This is the inspired teaching of God, and it must be respected.

One question that arises is whether or not this is speaking only of the husband and wife relationship. Some women will say that the only man they have to submit to is the husband. However, there is nothing in this context limiting the relationship to only husbands and wives. It says, “man is the head of woman.” If “man” here is “husbands only,” then does it also mean “husbands only” when it says “Christ is the head of every man”? If “every man” extends beyond husbands, then on what grounds does it become “husbands only” within the very same sentence? The general relationship is that man has authority over the woman. This is exactly what 1 Timothy 2:11-14 teaches. This does not mean that a man has a right to enter another man’s home and boss that man’s wife around. It does not mean that men generally can “command” women to be at their “beck and call.” It simply means that God has placed man in the leadership role, and women are to follow this lead, not attempting to usurp authority over men.

A second question over this verse comes with the word “head” itself. some are teaching that the word “head” means “source,” and does not refer to authority. What is the point of defining the word this way? If it is to say that man does not have the position of authority, there are many other passages to be reckoned with. Furthermore, if “head” means “source,” and refers tot he creation, then what does it mean when it says, “God is head of Christ”? Does it mean that somehow Jesus was created? The same word is used in referring to the husband and wife relationship in Ephesians 5:23. Is the husband the “source” of the wife? Defining the word this way creates more problems than it solves. The idea of “head” is clearly authority.

The Nature of the Authority

Men need to understand the nature of their authority. Is 1 Corinthians 11:3 describing a relationship where man has tyrannical rule over the woman? Not at all. Man does not have a right to force a woman into submission or dangle it over her head to get his own way. This is contrary to the teachings of Christ and the example that he himself left for us (cf. Phil. 2:3-8). A man is overstepping his bounds if he acts this way; and, to be sure, plenty of men have done this. Nor is this passage saying that man is better than woman. A man is no more human or godly than a woman is. This is simply an order of authority that God has put into effect. The nature of this authority is loving, considerate and decisive, just as God has demonstrated toward us. It does not give man a right to “lord it over” women (cf. Matt. 20:25-28).

Consider the relationship between Jesus and the Father. The Bible teaches that Jesus himself is God, equal in nature to the Father (Jn. I:1; 5:17-24; 10:30; Phil. 2:6; Heb. 1; etc.). Even so, Jesus took on a role of submission under the Father. This did not change his equality in nature; he simply acted in a different capacity than the Father. Like-wise, men and women are equal in terms of human nature. But God has given them different roles. This does not mean one is more or less important than the other. Both roles are vital for the proper functioning of society, the home and the church. We must respect God’s order. Man is to be the leader. He should respect the woman and try to make it pleasant for her to follow his example. The woman is respectfully to submit to the lead of the man.

In the church, men are to be leaders. Modem thinking has opened the door for women to take major leading roles in churches (i.e., preachers and “elders”). We will find real trouble very soon if the truth is not taught and upheld in this age. Though the biblical teaching about the roles of men and women is despised by the modem worldview, our efforts as Christians must be to please God (cf. Gal. 1:10). To place women in positions of equal authority to men in the church is to violate the Scriptures. Feminism has no place in the church of God. Our thinking on this matter needs to be dictated by God, not by political correctness.

Men need to be leaders in the home. Some men relinquish their responsibilities to the wives  some let their wives take over. Either way, God’s order has been violated. Men need to wake up to their obligations and lovingly lead their families in the ways of God. Unless the home reflects the godly order of leadership, the church and society both will suffer.

Conclusion

The bottom line is that 1 Corinthians 11:3 teaches that men are in the position of leadership, and women have the role of submission. A man’s attitude should be, as Christ, to be a loving leader, providing a good example and godly spirit. A woman’s attitude should be that she willingly submits and follows the lead. Man is not to put her in submission, and woman is not to despise submission. When God’s way is respected, the home, the church and the nation will prosper. Let us therefore seek to fulfill the will of God even against the prevailing backdrop of feminism today. It matters not what “they” say. Only what God says matters.

References

Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A

Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958.

Louw, Johannes P. and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. New

York: United Bible Societies, 1989.

Zohiates, Spiros. The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament. Iowa Falls: World Bible Publishers, Inc. 1992.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 3 p. 3-5
February 2, 1995

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

Belinda, a fine young Christian from Mexico, spent six weeks of last summer with my daughter’s family. Her enthusiasm, devoutness, and general spirituality were an inspiration to us all. What a delight to see one so young and so interested in so many things, yet seeming to have her priorities in order.

The first time she visited the church where my wife and I attend, I introduced her to brother Billy Norris, one of our elders. Her face almost literally lit up as she exclaimed, “I am so happy to meet you. I never met an elder before.”

Belinda is a faithful member of a small church in Mexico, where her father preaches and makes the bulk of his living doing secular work. Churches in that part of the world are very small, few, and far between  so it is understandable that she would have not had the opportunity to have “met an elder before.” Many of these churches barely have a plurality of men, much less a plurality of men qualified for the eldership. Churches can exist and be faithful to the Lord, in such circumstances, without elders overseeing them.

This incident got me to thinking. I wonder how many young Christians in our country, where there are more and larger churches, could empathize with Belinda  “I have never met an elder before.” Too many churches in areas where churches have been around for decades are without elders and the number seems to be growing all the time. Some have never had elders. Others have had but are now without them. Something is wrong.

No church should appoint elders just to say that they have elders. This does happen. A church’s having elders is contingent upon there being a plurality of qualified men who can be appointed to that work. If there is anything worse than a church without elders, it is a church with unqualified men masquerading as elders. The late J.D. Tant is reported to have said that when he was a boy he used to go into the words and cut branches off elder bushes and make pop-guns. He said the situation was later reversed  brethren were making elders out of pop-guns. I think I may have met some of those.

In a relatively short time after churches were established in Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, “they (Paul and his companions) had appointed elders in every church” (Acts 14:23). Some have wondered how these men could have met the strict qualifications, outlined by Paul in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 in so short a time. Some have suggested this proves that those qualifications were not meant to be strictly observed, but were only general guidelines  because these men would not have had time to develop all of them, strictly speaking. So, rather than insisting on all the qualifications listed by Paul, we should simply appoint those who come nearest to them  the best that we have, even if they don’t have all of those traits.

Paul would not have so carefully listed the qualifications for Timothy and Titus to follow and ignored any of them when he had a part in appointing elders. Besides, it is not unreasonable to think that there could have been men in those churches with all the qualifications. All qualifications do not have to be developed after one becomes a Christian. Obviously those that are peculiar to the faith must come after conversion not a novice, holy, holding fast the faithful word, being able to teach it, and by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict. If one applies himself it would not take very long to develop these.

As to other traits, one could have had them before becoming a Christian  the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy, gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous, ruling his own house, etc. As to believing children, they may have been converted at the same time as their fathers were (cf. Acts 16:34; 1 Cor. 1:16).

Churches need to be paying more attention to seeking out men and helping them develop scriptural qualifications or many of our young people are going to grow up not having met an elder.

There are many reasons for the shortage of elders among long-established congregations. Individually, developing the qualifications is simply not a high priority with many men in the church. Too, their families are not as careful as they need to be to help them meet the qualifications relating to the family. Collectively, little is done to train men to be elders. Churches often have training classes to encourage men to preach or have some other “public part.” Yet, few of these classes are geared to help train men to become elders.

In some cases, churches are kept from having good elders by a perverted idealism. Some qualifications are absolute, such as being the husband of one wife and having believing children. Some are relative, such as being able to teach and hospitable.

How many of the qualifications must one have? All of them  both relative and absolute. If one has all of them he can be appointed, if he lacks just one of them he cannot be. With a relative qualification, once it is determined that one has it, then the degree to which one has it can vary greatly from person to person. We need to be careful that we do not demand perfection or even near-perfection in those relative qualifications. Nor do we need to expect all the elders to possess them to the same degree. For example, we may know (or envision) elders whose hospitality or ability to teach is extra-ordinary. They become our ideal. We then reject any prospective elders who, though some-what hospitable and able to teach, are not as much so as our ideal. Such perverted idealism keeps some churches from having elders.

Sometimes power struggles keep churches from having elders. Preachers and other members, fearful of losing some of their clout, block the appointment of elders in one way or the other. Brethren, influenced by democratic models in civil governments, civic clubs and religious organizations, have in many cases come to believe that this type of government is best for the Lord’s church. The only way they will accept elders is for them to be “figure heads” who kind of lead a democratic process in the congregation.

This process is often accompanied by base political maneuvering. No wonder many churches feel that they can get along without elders as well as with elders  if not better. When elders are appointed, they are simply appointed to allow the congregation to claim scriptural status, but are expected and allowed to have little more than a ceremonial role.

The Lord’s church is not a democracy. The Lord is the head with all authority (Matt. 28:18; Eph. 1:20-23). In congregations, the Head has decreed that elders are to rule and members are to submit (1 Tim. 3:5; 5:17; Heb. 13:17). It is not majority rule. It is not minority rule. It is not dictator rule. It is not preacher rule. It is not women rule. It is elder rule.

Let brethren everywhere become more diligent in desiring the position of a bishop (1 Tim. 3:1). Let churches be more attentive to helping men qualify and then be eager and willing to appoint them once they are qualified. Let wives and children become more concerned with making it possible for husbands and fathers to become elders. Let members, honor, submit to, and otherwise help elders do their work, “with joy and not with grief ” (Heb. 13:17), so that we will not lose good men who just cannot take the pressure any longer. Yes, elders are human and limited in the amount of abuse they can endure.

Let elders learn to rule well, not as “being lords over those entrusted to (them),” so brethren will be less inclined to dispense with the eldership because of its abuses. Let us all recognize that the Lord’s way is best for the church  yea, the only way to please the Lord. Then, maybe just maybe, our children and grandchildren will not be saying, “I never met an elder before.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 2 p. 8-9
January 19, 1995

By Kenneth Sils

One hundred and fifty years ago, in 1844, the Supreme Court upheld a law which stated that all public schools across America were obligated to teach the Bible in order to receive public funding. Can you imagine that? In order for schools to get money from the government, they had to present the Bible as the inspired word of God! If you are a history buff, this would not surprise you because the founding fathers’ of our country were all Bible-believing men. Many of America’s early state constitutions demanded that their public officials profess they believed in God and the Lord-ship of Jesus Christ. Many of the founding fathers’ writings were filled with Bible quotes and the early grade school readers, called primers, were filled with moral lessons and quotations of Scripture. It has been estimated that 94% of the laws in the Constitution and Bill of Rights were established from governmental type laws found in the Old and New Testament.

What has happened in the last 150 years? The greatest changes have taken place in the last 35 years. In the early 1960s, our government began to reverse its trend of Bible teaching in public schools due to increasing pressure from various atheistic or humanistic groups. While we blame special secularized interest groups for running the Bible’s teaching out of schools, it’s interesting to see the decline of morals and ethics in society running parallel with today’s secularized public education.

The real blame for the breakdown of God’s Word in public schools belongs on the backs of Americans who have removed the need of the Bible in their homes. Fewer and fewer people are reading, studying and applying God’s principles taught in the Bible than ever before in our country. While our government continues to pervert the doctrine called “separation of church and state,” most “religious” people in our nation seek churches which fulfill their selfish, physical wants and pleasures without regard to God’s instruction demanded in the Bible for righteous living.

The proverb writer said, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34). Many churches in the 90’s are crying for Americans to be tolerant of immoral behavior while that behavior, or sin, is gradually destroying our nation. Sinful activities like abortion, homosexuality, divorce for any cause, gambling, social drinking, etc. are not only tolerated by many mainstream denominational groups but supported in their teaching and fellowship. When you look in many of our public school libraries, you’ll find all types of horror stories, witchcraft and occult type books, while the Bible is getting harder and harder to find.

Even though America appears to be on the brink of destruction due to its unrestrained lust and sin, there is hope for our country. James tells us in James 5;15 that “the effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.” The prayers of God’s children possess the power “to change the night to day.” We should also let our lights shine in the midst of this perverse generation so others can see that good will triumph over evil. Dear brother or sister, are you doing your part?

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 2 p. 13
January 19, 1995

By Harry R. Osborne

When we see a house, we do not ask what explosion brought it into being. We ask about its builder. When we see a car, we do not wonder what accident caused it to fall into its present style and color. We look to see who made it. When we contemplate our world in all of its complexity, order and beauty, why would we explain its presence as the chance result of a “big bang” and an endless series of accidents? How could such examples of design and order be the work of randomness rather than that of intelligent design?

Yet, that is the bottom line taught concerning the origin of our universe in many places, especially in our schools. The popular “Big Bang Theory” teaches that the universe is the result of an enormous explosion several billion years ago. When that theory is coupled with the general theory of evolution, many believe the explanation for our world and the existence of all life forms is adequately answered. In fact, some boldly claim that these theories provide the only “scientific” explanation for this universe. For example, note this 1952 statement made by Richard Goldschmidt:

The evolution of the organic world, from the synthesis of the first complex molecules endowed with the faculty of reproducing their kind to the most advanced type of life must have taken place roughly within the past two billion years on our planet. All of the facts of biology, geology, paleontology, biochemistry, and radiology not only agree with this statement but actually prove it. Evolution of the animal and plant world is considered by all those entitled to judgment to be a fact for which no further proof is needed (American Scientist, Jan. 52, p. 84).

Such bold assertions are often common from those out of touch with current evidence. Generally, those more knowledgeable in the facts regarding the subject of origins avoid such arrogant and misleading claims. The fact is that the general theory of evolution is nowhere close to being a “fact.” As a high school student, I had a biology teacher with the same attitude stated above. When I raised a question about problems with the evolutionary explanation for the origin of all things, Mr. Wells referred tome as a believer in “God, the Genesis myth, and other fairy tales.” However, he turned out to be the believer in fairy tales.

Among the “science” taught by this man was a theory that the human fetus goes through all of the stages of evolution within the womb. This is called the theory of recapitulation or ontology recapitulates phylogeny. I have a textbook ,Dynamic Biology, from 1933 which teaches the theory as a fact. At one point, it states a common claim made in its defense, saying, “The mammal embryo is often used to illustrate recapitulation. Gill openings appear just as if a gill-breathing fish were developing” (678). By the early fifties, this theory was largely abandoned by those most knowledgeable of embryology. A text from 1954, Principles of Biology, admits that the theory was not upheld by further study, but tries to hold on to it in part. Among scholarly circles in that area of study, the theory was dead by the late fifties. They found that the so-called “gill openings” or “gill slits” were nothing more than folds of skin! From that point until the present, scholars in the field of embryology have discarded the theory as false. However, many biology teachers, especially at the high school level continue to teach it today! Last year, I saw a high school biology handout teaching the theory with pictures of an embryo noting the “gill slits.” Who is teaching fairy tales? As time goes on, more and more of the evolutionists “facts” are turning out to be nothing more than “fairy tales” and we need to remind them of that fact!

Even among evolutionists, however, we find some honest enough to admit the problems with the general theory. A respected scientist, G.A. Kerkut, is one who happens to believe in the theory. He is, however, honest about its shortcomings. We will let him define our terminology and outline the areas of trouble for the evolutionists. Listen to the following definition of the problem by Dr. Kerkut from his book, Implications of Evolution:

There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the “Special Theory of Evolution” and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic (non-living) form. This theory can be called the “General Theory of Evolution” and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it anything more than a working hypothesis (p. 157).

In the same book, Dr. Kerkut is highly critical of some modem scientists, like Goldschmidt, who claim that the general theory of evolution should be accepted as the only logical explanation of our world. He repeatedly shows that the one who accepts this explanation does so upon the basis of “faith” rather that “fact.” To emphasize the point, Kerkut gives a list of seven basic assumptions in the theory which are totally unproven and unprovable. They are as follows:

(1) The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e. spontaneous generation occurred.

(2) The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.

(3) The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all interrelated.

(4) The fourth assumption is that the Protozoa (single-celled organisms) gave rise to the Metazoa (multi-celled organisms).

(5) The fifth assumption is that the various invertebrate phlya (organisms without a backbone) are interrelated.

(6) The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates (animals with backbones).

(7) The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to the amphibia, the amphibia to the reptiles, and reptiles to the birds and mammals.

All of these assumptions are just that  assumptions. They are not facts as some would like to think. The acceptance of these assumptions is done solely by faith, not on the basis of provable evidence. In the final analysis, the evolutionist and the creationist have the same evidence from which to begin and work. The differences come from the interpretation of that evidence. The question is, “Which interpretation is more reasonable?”

The Bible claims that the evidence available is properly used to deduce the existence of God. Paul said, “Since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made” (Rom. 1:20). Next issue, we will look at some of the evidence regarding the order of the world around us. We will ask ourselves whether it is more reasonable to believe the Bible account of our origin or the explanation given in the general theory of evolution.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 2 p. 14-15
January 19, 1995